The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva has thought it fit to pass a resolution by majority vote against Sri Lanka for what the resolution termed as a human rights violation. While reading the resolution, it is necessary to keep in view that it is not a unanimous resolution but only a resolution by majority votes.

After passing this resolution, one is not sure as to how the UNHRC would act against Sri Lanka and whether it would go into silence thinking that it has done its ‘job.’

It is well known by past experience that the United Nations Organisation and UNHRC would behave like a toothless tiger in the case of dealing with economically rich and militarily strong countries. It seems to act with “courage of conviction” only in the case of weak and developing countries. India along with 14 other countries like Japan and Nepal abstained from voting.

Sri Lanka's government had to face strong separatist and militant groups for several years, who were fighting a war, demanding a separate state for Tamils. In such condition, Sri Lanka's government had no alternative other than fighting back to the wall to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Every country in the world would have reacted in the same way and have been reacting in the same way in a similar situation, as the Sri Lanka government did.

Sri Lanka government suffered enormously due to the war and the separatist militant groups were ruthless and have killed not only several Sri Lankans and Sri Lanka military personnel but also several Tamils in northern Sri Lanka, who refused to toe the line of the militants. 

There were several factions in the militant groups and one faction fought with another faction and several Tamils were killed in the process.

For several years, the Sri Lankan government could not match its military strength with that of the strongly armed militant groups and it was a losing war for several years. Finally, when the Sri Lankan government could make its military stronger and fought the war and successfully defeated the militants, there were causalities of hundreds of people on both sides.

Human rights violation did take place during the civil war and it was inevitable in a war-like situation and both the Sri Lanka government and militants were responsible for this.

It is shocking that UNHRC commission has not meaningfully taken note of the human rights violation by the militant groups but has only condemned the Sri Lanka government. Is it not a partisan and prejudiced view, unbecoming of United Nations Organisation?

The countries which voted for the resolution are mostly the so-called democracies of western countries, who habitually only take note of the human rights violation in other countries and not in their own.

These days, very frequently, we hear about US police shooting down mercilessly those who indulge in terrorist-like activities.  In the same way, European countries such as France and others also ask the police to shoot down those indulging in terrorism. This is as it should be.  But, why these countries condemn the Sri Lankan government for acting, in the same way, to fight against the terrorists and violent-prone separatists?

Several other countries in Africa as well as in China and Russia have also killed protestors mercilessly in the name of preserving peace and public order.

The countries criticizing Sri Lanka for ‘human rights violation’ is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Certainly, any discerning and neutral observer would be justified in terming the resolution passed by UNHRC against Sri Lanka as unwarranted and partisan.

One only hopes that in the future, the UNHRC would gain greater wisdom, so that it can view such ‘human rights violation’ in a holistic manner and see the unavoidable reasons for it in proper perspective and without a preconceived view.

(The writer is a Trustee, NGO Nandini Voice for the Deprived, Chennai. The views are personal. He can be contacted at nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com)